The Right Honourable Winifred Ann Taylor, having been created Baroness Taylor of Bolton, of Bolton in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Evans of Parkside and the Lord Clark of Windermere, and made the solemn affirmation.
	Several noble Lords—took the Oath or affirmed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are already strong trilateral relations with colleagues in the Home Office and the Attorney-General which work extremely well. Any changes to the department's organisation would be a matter for the Prime Minister.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. I am sorry if the answers are too long; I shall try to get them to match the length of the questions in future.
	I agree with my noble friend that it would be fine if we could settle the issue this month, but it is important that we get the right answer rather than get it quickly. On what has been achieved, the parameters of the 2006 budget are already largely in place and it is much easier to make progress on that than on the financial perspective for the next seven years.
	In many ways, the discussion about rebate is a distraction. The key issue is the expenditure side of the equation. The continuing inefficiencies and inequities on the expenditure side of the budget and the resulting unfairness of the United Kingdom position mean that the abatement remains fully justified and is not up for negotiation. If we are in the situation when there is a fundamental review and debate about the future of Europe, including the financing of the European Union, everything will be up for discussion.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that referring to this as a rebate is not helpful? In fact, it is a corrective mechanism that was never intended to be renegotiated. As my noble friend said, it was intended to be a reform of the expenditure side of the budget, which, when so reformed, will mathematically eliminate the need for any payments back to the United Kingdom. The real challenge is for the other countries of the European Union—not only France, but also major net beneficiaries such as Spain—to so renegotiate the expenditure side of the budget that the need for the corrective mechanism disappears.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, we are where we are on those issues. We cannot rewrite history. It is always important for a judgment to be made on what is in the UK's best interest on all of those issues. When we enter into agreements, that is the key judgment which should underpin our decisions on those matters.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, that said, will my noble friend at least congratulate the Prime Minister of the democratic state of Israel for the determination that he is showing to move out of Gaza and to start withdrawal from the other part? It is the only country in the area that suffers from the problems of being a democratic state. Surely, it is important for us also to take steps to help and encourage President Abbas to clamp down on the terrorist organisations that are operating in Palestine.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that greater political and economic co- operation between Israel, Palestine and the EU in the context of the euro-Mediterranean partnership and the EU/Israel action plan gives the Union a greater stake in the Middle East peace process and thus further strengthens its role as a member of the quartet?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. That is precisely the reason why we have extended consultants' contract arrangements to academics under the arrangements that have just been made so that their pay better reflects the rest of the sector, and why we have put in place the current arrangements in respect of senior academic GPs.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the situation we are facing is something of a vicious circle? With the increase in the number of medical students and the opening of new medical schools, pressure is being applied more and more on medical academics to increase their teaching load, while NHS managers are putting pressure on them to see more and more patients, to the detriment of their research? The consequence of that is that, in the research assessment exercise, it is clear that their research is suffering, which results in lower funding for the departments in which they work. That needs urgent attention.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The UK is surrounded by a number of major shipping routes and the English Channel is the world's second busiest international waterway, after the Malacca Straits. As an island state with a coastline of more than 10,000 miles, the UK Government are very conscious of the potential environmental impacts stemming from a major pollution incident.
	Overall, shipping is an environmentally friendly form of transportation. The Government wish to capture the environmental benefits of trade by sea while defending the UK's marine and coastal environment. The Government recognise that trade by sea is inherently international and are committed to expanding our shipping industry's share of it, not least as a direct contribution to environmental protection overall.
	Balancing our trading interests, the rights of others to trade freely past our coasts, and our environmental needs, require a proactive international approach from the UK in getting agreement. We must follow through by implementing what we have agreed, and the Bill helps us to do that. The main purpose of the Bill is to allow the UK to implement two important international treaties, one greatly to improve compensation for oil pollution and the other to introduce measures to reduce air pollution from ships.
	Marine oil pollution can have devastating effects. The public are familiar with the dreadful images of polluted coastlines and oiled sea birds and mammals, but the effects go much further. The economies of coastal communities, and their fishing and tourism industries, can be shattered by a major oil spill. Following the "Torrey Canyon" incident off Land's End in 1967, it quickly became evident that there were inadequate arrangements for compensating those who suffered damage. That led to the development of an international system to ensure that victims of oil pollution damage would be fully and promptly compensated.
	The resulting international regime was founded on two treaties: first, a liability convention that made ship owners strictly liable for pollution damage and required them to maintain insurance to cover their liability; and secondly, a fund convention that provided additional compensation to victims of oil pollution damage when they were unable to obtain full compensation under the liability convention. The additional compensation provided under the fund convention is paid for by oil receivers in state parties to that convention. I stress the point that the regulatory regime is provided internationally by states; the liability and compensation system within it is funded by the industries concerned.
	When we read lurid stories following accidents, we should perhaps recall just how comparatively rare serious maritime accidents are, and how responsible the industries have been in updating compensation arrangements, as well as employing better construction and operational standards in the ships used.
	The original instruments have since been superseded, but the international regime remains in place and, to date, 93 states have joined the regime. During the past 26 years, the regime has provided compensation in more than 130 oil pollution incidents. In the vast majority of cases, claims have been settled without the need for lengthy and costly court cases.
	Since the regime was established, the UK has experienced two further major incidents, the "Braer" off the Shetland Isles in 1993 and the "Sea Empress" off Milford Haven in 1996. The amount of compensation available at the time was just £51 million. The international fund provided compensation of £51 million in respect of the "Braer" and £37 million in respect of the "Sea Empress".
	Even with the compensation provided by the international system, cost recovery in those incidents was not without difficulty. There were concerns at that time that the levels of damages from those incidents could exceed the limit of compensation then available. That led to periods when claimants could not be paid in full or quickly. The limits of compensation were therefore significantly increased in 1996. Full payment of claims under the international system has proved to be a problem in a number of cases, notably after the extremely damaging "Erika" and "Prestige" incidents in 1999 and 2002 respectively. The present regime provides for an overall limit of £160 million of compensation. However, it has become clear that, following the most serious incidents, the present regime may not be able to settle claims for several years, and that claimants may never receive full compensation in the most serious of cases.
	The membership of the international regime agreed that it was necessary to address that fundamental shortcoming and consider other possible improvements to the regime. The Supplementary Fund Protocol was therefore developed to provide an additional £440 million of compensation for victims of oil pollution in states that choose to ratify the protocol and are content for their oil industries to make additional financial contributions. In short, when both the existing fund and the supplementary fund can be applied to an incident they bring to bear a total of £600 million to compensate claims arising from that incident.
	I am pleased to report that the UK has played a prominent part in helping to develop the necessary reforms. The supplementary fund entered into force in March this year and has, so far, been ratified by 10 states—Japan, which has always been a significant contributor, and nine states in Europe. The membership is now expected to grow quite rapidly and we wish to ensure that the UK can have the added financial protection that the supplementary fund can provide.
	The Bill therefore makes provision for the UK to implement the Supplementary Fund Protocol and it is the Government's intention to do so as soon as possible. The supplementary fund must be paid for, and it is the oil industry that will have to bear the additional costs. However, it is expected that the costs of all but the most extreme incidents will continue to be covered by the existing fund.
	The main benefit of this legislation is that the presence of the supplementary fund will enable claims for payment under the existing fund to be met without fear of exceeding the limit of that fund. Full and prompt payment should be assured by virtue of the fact that the total sum of £600 million compensation that will be available should cover any likely circumstances.
	In most cases, if an oil spill affects the UK coast, substantiated claims will be paid promptly and in full under the existing regime and, if necessary following a major spill, by the supplementary fund. This should, in future, avoid the likelihood of full payment of claims being delayed until the final costs of an incident can be more accurately assessed, as we saw after the "Braer" and "Sea Empress" incidents, and after other more recent incidents elsewhere in Europe and the wider world.
	Following enactment of the Bill, the UK would be able to join the Supplementary Fund Protocol, and have the benefit of the financial protection it offers, within a relatively short period of time. Until that happens, the UK cannot access the substantial additional benefits conferred.
	I now turn to the detail of the legislation. The Supplementary Fund Protocol would be implemented in the UK by secondary legislation. An Order in Council has been drafted and will be made available by the time that the Bill reaches Committee, if the House agrees to this procedure. The order contains the detailed provisions implementing the Supplementary Fund Protocol in the UK. The provisions are of a technical nature and amend those in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 relating to the fund convention so as to extend them to the Supplementary Fund Protocol.
	The order will require major oil receivers in the UK to make contributions to the supplementary fund in the same way that they currently do in respect of the existing fund. The contributions will, of course, be needed only if the £162 million available from the existing fund proves insufficient in a particular incident.
	UK oil importers already contribute to the existing fund. They were consulted last year on the proposal to implement the Supplementary Fund Protocol. The oil industry clearly favours a predictable and international approach to providing compensation for oil pollution damage. The industry supports implementation of the Supplementary Fund Protocol as just one measure of a wider strategy to improve the existing regime.
	I now turn to the next part of the Bill, which makes provision for the implementation of future instruments governing compensation for oil pollution damage.
	The international regime is not perfect, but it works. It is preferable to and less burdensome on industry and governments than domestic or regional arrangements. The UK, along with a number of other states that have suffered major pollution from oil tankers, believes that the regime needs to be kept up to date. As I mentioned earlier, the original instruments were superseded a number of years ago. The fundamental principles of the regime, however, remained unchanged, but improvements were made, for example, to widen the scope of application. The regime now provides for reasonable environment reinstatement measures. The regime has also developed considerably in respect of compensation for the economic consequences of an oil disaster, when originally it was conceived as primarily concerned with clean-up.
	The regime will no doubt continue to evolve. Indeed it must if it is to remain viable and successful and meet legitimate claims. The principles on which the present version of the regime is based were first agreed over 20 years ago but were not implemented until the present regime came into force in 1996. It is important, therefore, that the Bill makes provision for the implementation of any future instruments, when developed, to improve the regime still further. Such instruments are of course agreed only after extensive debate, in which the industries concerned fully participate.
	The UK Government will always want the option of being part of the international regime from the earliest opportunity. That is why the Bill makes provision for the UK to become a party to any instrument which modifies or replaces the existing regime. Of course, such a power would not be used before the usual public consultation and regulatory impact assessment exercises have been conducted. The provision of the power in the Bill means that the government of the day have the ability, if they so decide, to implement any new, internationally negotiated instruments governing oil pollution compensation without having to first pursue primary legislation. Parliament would of course retain an active scrutiny of the future proposal by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, which would apply to any secondary legislation made under this provision.
	The Bill also includes a very minor amendment relating to the existing international fund as contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. That Act contains a provision relating to the time limit within which claims must be brought against the existing international fund. In order to ensure that the provision of the 1995 Act is interpreted consistently with the text of the fund convention, the Bill modifies the language used in Section 178 of the 1995 Act to follow more closely the wording of the treaty.
	The Bill also provides for a power to make secondary legislation regarding air pollution from ships. It does so by amending Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so removing a doubt on the current scope of that section. The secondary legislation would implement Annex VI to the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as the MARPOL Convention. Here again we are seeking to implement domestically what we have already negotiated internationally.
	The secondary legislation would apply the series of internationally agreed technical standards which forms Annex VI to UK flagged vessels. The aim of these standards is to reduce air pollution from shipping through control of emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and ozone-depleting substances. These pollutants have been identified as causing environmental degradation and damage to human health.
	Nitrogen oxides react with hydrocarbons at ground level to form ozone when exposed to sunlight; ground-level ozone exacerbates pre-existing lung complaints, including asthma, and has been demonstrated to increase rates of hospitalisation and use of medication. When released into the atmosphere, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides react to form acidic compounds. These can fall as acid rain or be deposited as dry particles causing localised acidic damage. Acid deposition in both forms can cause severe damage to forests and water bodies, and damage man-made structures.
	It is important to tackle emissions from shipping through internationally applicable technical standards. By 2020, the total number of ships worldwide is expected to be double what it was in 2000. This growth in the number of ships will be reflected in an increasing amount of traffic calling at UK ports and transiting UK waters. Generally, shipping is a friend to the environment, as I remarked at the outset of this debate, but there is considerable room for improvement in the atmospheric pollutant emissions from ships. Implementation of this annex would be a positive step towards greener shipping—and shipping, along with other forms of transportation, must play its part in improving the environment.
	Applying domestic legislation which implements MARPOL Annex VI would ensure that all relevant ships were certified, maintained and operated in accordance with the internationally agreed technical standards. I am pleased to say that the proposal to implement this annex of MARPOL has been welcomed by the UK shipping industry and marine engine manufacturers in their response to consultation.
	It is important for the UK economy that the UK introduce legislation implementing MARPOL Annex VI as soon as possible. If we do not do so, UK flagged ships will be at risk of detention or delay in ports of states which have implemented it. Needless to say, that could have a severe impact on the UK merchant fleet. Above all, it is important for the environment, of both the UK and the wider world where UK ships ply their trade, that the UK implement the provisions of the annex.
	The Bill will enable the Government to implement this by secondary legislation. Draft secondary legislation contains the detail of the regulations contained in Annex VI and will be made available by the department by the time the Bill reaches Committee.
	To sum up, the Government are determined that the UK should have the best possible financial and environmental arrangements available to protect our coastal interests from the effects of oil pollution from tankers and of air pollution from ships. Recent incidents in Japan, France and Spain have demonstrated that costs of major spills can far exceed the amount of compensation that is available under the existing regime. The £602 million available through the Supplementary Fund Protocol should ensure that in virtually any conceivable circumstances compensation can be paid promptly and in full. We wish to have this protection in place as soon as possible.
	The Bill will allow the UK to implement two important international treaties, which will have benefits both for the environment and for the financial protection of UK coastal interests. It is also important for the UK to be seen to be actively taking these measures, especially bearing in mind the prominent role which the UK played in negotiating these provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak from these Benches on this small but important piece of legislation.
	We support any measures that are designed to tackle the horrific environmental, social and economic effects of marine pollution. Oil slicks are no respecters of international waters and so, effectively, what we have before us today is an international Bill designed to bring the UK into line with efforts to tackle the appalling effects of oil spillages. Additionally, in the Bill, as the Minister said, there are measures designed to reduce the pollution emitted from shipping. Again, we support the intent behind such legislation. That said, there are important and pressing questions arising from the Bill, which I shall highlight today.
	Recent figures from the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation show that the number of oil spillages has reduced by around one-third since the 1970s. Significantly, incidents classified as large spills have reduced dramatically. That has been much to do with better crew training and by the introduction of double-skinned hulls. Most spills from tankers result from routine operations such as loading, discharging and bunkering, which normally occur in ports or oil terminals. The majority of those operational spills are very small, with some 91 per cent involving quantities of less than seven tonnes. Accidents involving collisions and groundings generally give rise to much larger spills with almost one-fifth involving quantities in excess of 700 tonnes.
	Of course, no two oil spillages are the same. The composition of the oil, the location of the spill—far out at sea or near land—and the weather conditions are all relevant. When such a disaster does happen, as we all know, its impact is truly horrendous. Who can forget the awful images following the sinking of the "Prestige" off the Spanish coast a couple of years ago or, closer to home, the "Sea Empress" in Milford Haven in 1996, the "Braer" off the Shetland Islands in 1993, or, as the Minister said, the "Torrey Canyon" in 1967?
	Such incidents do not only have an impact in the short term; they can have a lasting effect for many years, indeed decades. The cost to maritime life, as we so dramatically saw with the "Exxon Valdez" incident, can be horrific and the cost to those people who depend on the sea and its surrounds can be equally disastrous. Fishermen, local hoteliers, restaurant owners and others along the Portuguese and north Spanish coast were all adversely affected, I remember well, following the sinking of the "Prestige" in 2002.
	Arising directly from this disaster and others in recent years, it was found that the existing structures in place to pay for the clean up and provide compensation were inadequate. Part of the problem, we are told, was the delay in providing such compensation given that the total cost of damage arising from an incident may not be known for many years. Indeed, to date, only 15 per cent of the total amount claimed following the "Prestige" disaster has actually been paid. For that reason, many felt that the existing structures were unable to cope and that a new fund was set up. However, perhaps for one moment I may play devil's advocate. Surely, rather than creating a new fund it would have been better to have reformed the existing one—the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. What thought was actually given to reforming this fund, speeding up its mechanisms and increasing its financial worth—which, we have heard, is inadequate—so that it was able adequately to cover the increasing costs of modern oil spills?
	Moving on to the new fund itself, we are told that it would make available an additional £440 million or so—the Minister increased that figure—and that that amount would be made available by the major oil importers internationally, rather than falling on national budgets. Would the money be collected now and kept in a central pot or would it be collected only in the event of a spill and distributed when claims for compensation had been assessed and validated? If that is the case, I cannot see how the administration of this new fund differs dramatically from that of the old one.
	Indeed, there appears to be no guarantee that the fund will be able to compensate adequately and quickly. Will the Minister comment on that? What would happen in the event of two simultaneous major oil spills—would there be enough money in the fund to cover such circumstances? We are told that the supplementary fund would provide £440 million—although I stand corrected after what the Minister said today—on top of the £162 million in the existing scheme. However, when we are dealing with a major oil spillage with a cost of clean-up and compensation that may run into billions, one wonders whether the amount is actually sufficient.
	I would also be interested to learn what response the Government received to their consultation paper issued in December last year from the British shipping industry, notably the major oil importers. In particular, has the Bill before us today changed in any way following that consultation? A three-month consultation period does not appear terribly long in the great scheme of things. I hope that the department was not simply going through the motions.
	I now turn to the crucial matter in this Bill; namely, the number of participating countries that have signed up to the new fund. The Minister mentioned that there are existing members and others will join later this year. The remaining countries of the EU will join over the course of the next year or so and I learnt from the department that both Canada and Australia are likely to join shortly. However, what about the large number of countries that have neither signed up nor have any plans to do so? We have a large number of flag of convenience—or open register—countries, including those with significant registered tonnage, that are party to the old fund regime but not to the new one.
	I am learning that the world of international maritime legislation moves as fast as a slow boat to China and that countries are not going to sign up overnight, but with such notable absentees, surely the whole scheme could be undermined. Indeed, the two countries with the largest registered tonnage—Panama and Liberia—are notable by their absence. What would happen if a major oil spill occurred either in the waters of a country that had not signed up to the fund or to a vessel registered in one of the absent countries? What action are the UK Government taking either unilaterally or through the vestiges of the EU or the International Maritime Organisation to encourage more states to sign up to the supplementary fund?
	Also, why has the UK's own ratification taken so long, since the protocol was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May 2003 and the European Council decision that urged member states to ratify the fund by June 2004? There may be technical reasons for this delay and I appreciate that the department consultated, but I would welcome the Minister's explanation for the delay.
	As the Minister said, the Bill will also allow for further legislation relating to the pollution compensation regime to be passed through secondary legislation, subject to affirmative resolution. We are also told that the Government are currently conducting a review of existing instruments to,
	"redress the balance of financial contributions between the shipping and oil industries and to provide for a number of administrative amendments which may otherwise threaten the operation and effectiveness of the international regime".
	If the Minister cannot answer me today, I would be grateful if he would write to me to answer further questions that I have and explain further details of this review, its intent and its time frame. I would also be interested to learn why and which existing pieces of legislation,
	"threaten the operation and effectiveness of the international regime".
	As the Minister said, the Bill also includes measures designed to tackle air pollution from shipping by introducing the process required to ratify Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. We support such a measure but I wonder about the reasons for the delay in the UK's ratification process given that the convention was originally agreed to in September 1997. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that. Will he also provide full details of each MARPOL annex and the proposed draft regulations relating to Annex VI and confirm that they will be available by Committee stage? I would also be interested to learn whether the Government have consulted the British shipping industry on this measure. If they have not, will the Minister give an assurance today that they will do so?
	We have been told that secondary legislation is being prepared to allow the ratification of Annex IV. What is the time frame for ratification of this particular annex? I make the same point that I made earlier about the supplementary fund. It is all very well for the UK, a handful of other wealthy European countries, the United States and Canada signing up to these international treaties, but if we do not have those countries with large registered tonnages, the whole thing is effectively worthless. Air pollution is obviously no respecter of international borders. Therefore, there is a danger of older, more polluting vessels simply being registered in countries not signed up to such conventions, rather like the trade in old passenger planes being recycled for use in the third world because they do not meet strict European or American air pollution regulations. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could tell me exactly which countries have signed up to each particular MARPOL annex and what steps the UK Government are taking to encourage more to join.
	As I mentioned, we are happy to support the legislation before us today. However we have one criticism, which is that we think the Bill is rather reactionary in nature, dealing with the worst effects of an oil spill after it has happened. Although we are all agreed that anything that assists and speeds up the nature of conservation is to be welcomed, that does not of course stop the incident from happening in the first place.
	Surely such measures as are outlined in the Bill would sit more comfortably with a more proactive and preventive approach from the Government. Perhaps the Minister would therefore like to outline the Government's strategy for stopping such incidents happening in the first place.
	There was talk some time ago of banning single-skinned tankers from entering EU waters. Do the Government still support such a measure, and if so, at what stage are the negotiations and discussions?
	We support the intent of this Bill. We can support it here at Second Reading and we will support it during the Committee stage. However, as I have tried to outline today, there are a whole host of questions and issues the Bill raises. I hope as the Bill moves through this House some of those questions will be answered.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I rise briefly to give my support to this important measure. In doing so, I am conscious of the fact that sitting to my right is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who has great experience in such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who is to follow me has many years of experience of dealing with MARPOL Conventions. For that reason, I will keep my remarks fairly short.
	I certainly welcome the first part of the Bill, which has measures to speed up compensation and to provide more compensation for major oil spills. Something has been said by previous speakers about the horrendous effects of large pollution incidents, but we should bear it in mind that the amount of pollution from ships is still far smaller than the amount of natural pollution that comes from seepage into the sea. It is not the enormous problem that some people believe it to be.
	Nevertheless, when such incidents occur, they are extremely worrying. It is also import however that the general public should be reminded that we rely for everything we use in this country on sea travel in some form or another—about 93 per cent of all the goods that we receive, use and eat comes by sea. Sea travel is very important to this country—it would be, naturally, it being an island.
	I hope that, this year, the events connected with the bicentenary of the death of Nelson and the Sea Britain campaign will help to educate the public on the importance of sea transport. Horrendous though those major pollution incidents are, they have to, I believe, be accepted, if people are to be able to go to the petrol pumps and fill up their gas-guzzling cars whenever they want to or go to the supermarket and buy a huge range of goods from the shelves.
	The Bill is part of a slow process of measures to alleviate the problem; to cut down on pollution incidents; and to see that, when they occur, the pollution is pegged speedily. I take great comfort from the fact that the chief executive of BP Shipping, speaking in Oslo at a conference last week, said that his company would rack up its measures to improve safety as regards possible accidents and environmental pollution. BP already has a very good name in the business, and the fact that it wants to go even further is encouraging.
	The second part of the Bill deals with the ratification of Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, it has been in preparation for some time, and ship owners have had a lot of time to look at the problem. If I remember rightly, it come into force last month, on 19 May.
	Sulphur emissions from ships are growing, as has been said. Global trade is growing, and we are faced with more and more ever-larger container ships, some of them capable of carrying more than 9,000 containers—and there are even larger ones in the pipeline. Those ships are driven by engines approaching 100,000 horse power that pump out an awful lot of emissions. Ships account for 4 per cent of global sulphur emissions and 7 per cent—slightly more—of nitrogen emissions. This measure is part of a small step to start reducing the sulphur and nitrogen content in marine fuel.
	I know that the whole business of moving the maritime world forward, with regard to these conventions, is a worry to many people—including Friends of the Earth. But I fear that we must move slowly, and I deprecate the unilateral action that some states sometimes take to move things forward faster. We must all try to move at the same pace.
	I mentioned the shipping companies, which have been looking at the situation for some time. In fact, only last year, P&O fitted a device to one of their ferries running across the English Channel between Dover and Calais—something called an eco-silencer, which is designed to cut sulphur emissions by 95 per cent and nitrogen oxides by 80 per cent. BP is also looking at something similar, and other shipping companies are looking at other measures. There is also the question of reduced sulphur content in fuel. I know that the shipping community is not necessarily agreed on that yet, but there are several different ways in which to approach the problem. The maritime community is not unaware of its responsibilities.
	Incidentally, the technique used for eco-silencers is called "scrubbing" in general terms, which alludes to the fact that sea water is brought into contact with the emissions to transfer the sulphur oxides from the gas into water, thereby resulting in sulphate, which is a natural component of sea water. That is further filtered to remove particulates.
	Looking ahead from that, in part of my work outside the House, I have worked for the past 15 years with the Port of Los Angeles. Over there, they are quite far advanced in the business of trying to cut down pollution, which is a major problem. Last year, almost a year ago to the day, they unveiled the first electrified container tunnel. Ships enter it when they come into port, shut down their main engines and generators and plug into shore power. They say that, where the west coast of America leads, the rest of the world follows. I am sure that that is the case—and I am sure that, as the years go by, we shall see more and more use of shore power in ports. Certainly, the shipping companies are aware of that and are working towards it. The process in that case is known by the rather strange name of "cold ironing". That is something that we must watch in future; I believe that it will come in more and more.
	I have one word of caution on the conventions. I draw a parallel with the question of parking in London; over-zealous petty officials, in order to make money out of it, sometimes upset a lot of people. There is a slight danger that that tendency might creep into the maritime business as well. We have already seen some incidents in the past couple of years in which the French have been slightly over-zealous in seeking out pollution from ships.
	This is an ongoing business, and of necessity a slow one. We should all like to speed it up, but nevertheless we are making a useful start. I am sure that more developments will come in and will be taken note of. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, marine Bills do not often come before Parliament, and it is with an almost complete lack of up-to-date knowledge that I dare to speak today. I say "up-to-date" because I never returned to sea after taking my Master's Certificate of Competency in the late 1960s, and ceased hands-on involvement a few years later. However, former colleagues have been extremely kind in filling me in on what happens nowadays, and for that I thank them. In those days, we had experienced, well qualified and dedicated officers and crew, who would look after the safety of the ship and other seafarers before themselves. Nowadays, in many instances, the opposite applies.
	The Bill before us is excellent, as far as it goes. There are other forms of marine pollution, however, about which most people are ignorant. Some affect this country, others do not. Some would consider them minor, but in totality they can be fairly major. I ask your indulgence if I mention some of them.
	An empty bulk carrier or oil tanker arriving at a port to load a cargo will, in order to reach that port, have taken on some water ballast. That ballast regularly contains marine life alien to that port and country and will be discharged when approaching the loading port. The implications are not to be sneezed at.
	I am led to believe that last summer, at low tide in Williamstown, Australia, hundreds of north Japanese sea-star crowded onto the piles and sea bottom, no doubt demolishing the mussels that normally grow there. Port Philip Bay, on which Melbourne is situated, now has about 156 exotics. And what about the thoughtless throwing away of plastic bags, string and nets, which can and do end up around the necks of seals and dolphins?
	I quote part of an e-mail that I received from a former colleague:
	"My considered opinion is that most marine pollution is caused by the ever increasing under manning of ships and the employment of third rate and cheap seamen. Any engineer worth his salt—and those that aren't—will simply bypass the oily water separators because they haven't got the time to stand by its operation. Provided schedules are maintained, most ship owners couldn't care less about pollution".
	I would add to that, "unless the ship owner is fined".
	Vancouver reduced its oil-spill response costs a couple of years ago from $11 million a year to $3 million by employing people to put string seals on all outboard valves when the ship arrived in port. Consequently, any spillage will break the string seal, and the offending ship is fined. What a simple method.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has already said that west coast USA and Canadian ports, among others, are supplying power to ships—which, in turn, can turn their supplies off—in order to reduce greenhouse emissions in their ports.
	There is the problem of oil discharged from ships finding its way to the bottom of the sea, leading to the destruction of living organisms. I would love to give further examples of pollution that have been provided to me, but at least I have referred to some that might provide food for thought. Oil pollution is not the only pollution emanating from ships. It would be marvellous if the compensation fund was not necessary, but it is and, therefore, I support the Bill.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	One aspect of the Bill will cause controversy, particularly in your Lordships' House: the Bill sets the threshold for "older person" at 60. As I cast my eyes around the Chamber, they alight on the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Is it possible that in one year's time he will be regarded as an "older person"? Certainly not. He is now and will be, as will many noble Lords, in the first flush of youth.
	The Bill is another first for Wales. Wales was first to establish a children's commissioner. The Bill will create the first commissioner for older people. However, there is another controversial matter that I should deal with at the outset—timing.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill was published as a draft for consultation on 22 March, before the general election. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the closing date for that consultation is today. I should add that the National Assembly is not due to debate the Bill and the report prepared on it by the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee until tomorrow.
	Let me attempt to address the concerns of those who may feel that we are jumping the gun by bringing the Bill forward at this time. Had the general election not intervened, we would of course have followed normal practice in subjecting the Bill to the full range of public and parliamentary scrutiny before introduction. The general election caused an inevitable reconsideration of the legislative programme. An early opportunity arose to introduce the Bill in your Lordships' House, and we felt that it was a sufficiently important measure that we should grasp that opportunity.
	The Government recognise that the early introduction has meant that the Bill is not as polished or complete as we would normally expect. Indeed, we have already identified amendments that we intend to table before the Bill is considered in Committee. We recognise that the public consultation, the brief consideration by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, the report of the Assembly subject committee and the Assembly itself may well give rise to further suggestions for amendments.
	To help the process of consideration in this House, we shall make available tomorrow in the Printed Paper Office copies of all the responses to the public consultation. That will give noble Lords time to prepare questions and amendments, if necessary, for consideration in Committee, when we shall be happy to debate them. We will consider them with an open mind. It should be borne in mind that the measures have been the subject of a number of stages of consultation, and we are confident that new issues are unlikely to arise. I can say that, as of this morning, almost 80 responses had been received to the consultation, all but three of which had been totally supportive of the Bill. However, should detailed consideration of the consultation responses suggest further improvements to the Bill, we shall also address those before Committee.
	I shall summarise what we have done so far and what we intend to do before the start of Committee stage. The Bill was published in draft on 22 March, allowing 12 weeks for responses. That period ends today. We shall make copies of responses available to Members of the House tomorrow. We shall also make available copies of the reports of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly.
	I hosted a meeting last week with the Wales Office Minister, Nick Ainger and the Assembly's Deputy Health Minister, John Griffiths, to provide further information on the Bill to Members of the House. The Assembly has brought forward to tomorrow its consideration of the Bill, which will take account of the report of its HSS Committee, and we will make a copy of its conclusions available at least a week before the start of Committee. The group of minor amendments that the Government have identified to improve the Bill will also be tabled at least a week before the start of Committee.
	I shall now turn to the Bill. The developed world is facing major demographic change. Life expectancy is rising, and fertility rates are falling. Some 22 per cent of people in Wales are aged 60 and over, compared with 20 per cent in England. In 20 years, those figures will increase to 28 per cent in Wales, compared with 25 per cent in England. Over the same period, the number of people in Wales aged 85 and over will triple to 85,000.
	People are living longer and healthier lives, but that longevity brings significant social and other changes that require effective planning and new approaches. In Wales, the Assembly has developed a strategy for older people, based on UN principles on ageing—independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. It was developed following extensive consultation through a number of stages. At each of those stages, it received overwhelming support from older people, their representative organisations and others.
	The Bill is the next logical step in the implementation of the Assembly's strategy for tackling the far-reaching social and other implications of an ageing population. The strategy was launched in January 2003 and provides a structured basis for the Assembly and other public bodies in Wales to develop future policies and plans that better reflect the needs of older people. It turns from seeing old age as a problem and older people as a burden, to a model of engagement and citizenship for all older people. Age stereotyping and discrimination will be tackled and positive images of ageing promoted.
	That is where the Commissioner for Older People will have a significant role. Research undertaken while developing the strategy indicated that, although steps had been taken to tackle issues arising from it, for some older people in Wales poverty was still a genuine problem, exacerbated by perceptions of age as stigmatising. People generally felt that older people were discriminated against in a number of ways.
	The commissioner will have powers and duties that are at least comparable to those of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, while taking into account the different situations and needs of older people. The commissioner will have three important functions: tackling age discrimination, promoting positive images of ageing and giving older people a stronger voice in society.
	The responsibilities of the commissioner will include influencing policy and service delivery; being a source of information, advocacy and support; safeguarding, enforcing, enhancing and promoting rights; and investigating complaints. As the Children's Commissioner does for children in Wales, the Commissioner for Older People will speak up on behalf of older people in Wales, helping to raise the profile of older people and increase awareness about their needs. The commissioner will be independent of government and the Assembly. He or she will also help older people to influence the way in which public services are managed and delivered in Wales, the better to meet their needs.
	The commissioner's general functions to assist older people in Wales will include promoting awareness of their interests; encouraging good practice in their treatment; promoting the provision of opportunities for them and the elimination of discrimination against them; and keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law affecting them. The commissioner will be able to review and monitor the arrangements for dealing with complaints, whistle blowing and advocacy of bodies that provide services directly to older people. In addition, he or she will be able to review the discharge of functions of bodies—for example, the Assembly, local authorities and the NHS—whose policies may have an impact on the lives of older people. Where other avenues of redress have been exhausted and wider matters of principle are involved, the commissioner may examine individual cases and, in certain circumstances, support individuals in making a complaint or representation.
	Other powers will include discretion to undertake research; to issue guidance on best practice; and to make reports to the Assembly on the exercise of his or her functions. The commissioner will be able to make representations to the Assembly about non-devolved matters relating to the interests of older people in Wales. The Assembly will decide whether to pursue them.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, Peter Hain, has made clear his willingness to meet Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, to discuss any non-devolved matter on which he may wish to make representations. We intend that the same arrangements would be available to the Commissioner for Older People.
	As I said, the Bill defines an older person as one of age 60 or over. That encompasses those who are entitled from age 60 to receive winter fuel and pension credit benefits, women aged 60-plus, who will continue to receive state pension until 2013 and those in the National Assembly's free swimming and bus pass schemes, which also start at age 60. We consider that that strikes the right age balance. A lower age limit would have significant implications for the commissioner's workload. If it were higher, we would miss an important and growing section of older people.
	The National Assembly will fund the office of the commissioner. It is not possible now to make accurate predictions, but we are working on the assumption that the commissioner will consume similar resources to the Children's Commissioner. Start-up costs, we think, will be of the order of £500,000 and, with a staff of about 30, there will, we think, be annual running costs of around £1.5 million. Should it turn out in practice that costs are higher, those, too, will be met by the Assembly with no new money from Westminster.
	I said earlier that we intended to table some minor amendments to the Bill before Committee. We will table those amendments and provide all the other information that I mentioned earlier at least a week before the start of Committee. That will give noble Lords the opportunity to reflect on them and prepare for a full debate in Committee.
	We intend to table amendments to clarify the commissioner's ability to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen, so as to avoid duplication and to enable the commissioner to share information with them.
	We wish to correct a discrepancy in the Bill that was drawn to our attention by the Welsh Affairs Committee. It concerns the commissioner's ability to assist an older person who has been placed for care or treatment in England in pursuing a complaint with the placing authority in Wales, such as a local authority or NHS body. Minor amendment is also required to enable the Assembly to issue directions, if necessary, requiring the commissioner to establish an internal complaint procedure.
	Should we decide that further amendments resulting from the consultation and from this Second Reading debate would improve the Bill, we shall aim to have those tabled in good time for discussion in Committee also. I assure the House that we are fully prepared to consider any and all suggestions for improvements to the Bill. If any noble Lords have questions about any aspect of the Bill, the policy that underlies it or the detail of how we envisage the arrangements working, I shall be happy to discuss them or to provide a written reply before Committee.
	This is an important Bill that has attracted huge support in Wales from older people and their representative organisations and from all parties in the National Assembly. I hope that we in this House can achieve similar consensus on the principles of what is a ground-breaking proposal to benefit older people in Wales. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be considered a second time.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, most of your Lordships would agree that, celebrating my 75th birthday next month—as I hope to do, God willing—I am reasonably well qualified to talk about the elderly and comment on the Bill.
	Cicero, one of the great conservatives of the Roman Republic, wrote a treatise on old age when he was about the same tender age as the Minister, which brings me, circuitously, to the key point underlying the Bill. We can now all expect to live longer and so many of us do that the proportion of the population aged over 65 has increased dramatically and will continue to do so, barring another Black Death or some other calamity.
	I must confess a liking for the Prime Minister's positive—indeed, spirited approach to this,
	"unprecedented change in the fabric of society",
	as he describes the growing proportion of elderly in our communities in his foreword to the Government publication, Opportunity Age—Meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century. The Prime Minister writes:
	"An ageing society is too often and wrongly seen solely in terms of increasing dependency. But the reality is that, as older people become an ever more significant proportion of the population, society will increasingly depend upon the contribution they can make".
	I am glad that the Minister has caught the Prime Minister's mood in that foreword. The thrust of the entire document is that we must change our ideas about retirement and ageing and seize the positive opportunities. Out goes the early retreat to the golf club and in comes a stay at work to do what we can to pass on our skills and experience, if any. I am told that a million people already work beyond retirement age. I must say that it is an impressive document, but delivering its policy content across the Government and to the public at large will not be easy. I think that the Prime Minister would acknowledge that.
	A great deal of thinking and discussion about ageing population problems has been going on in Wales, too—and with good reason as, as the Minister said, 22 per cent of our current Welsh population is aged more than 65. There was a report from an advisory group on a strategy for older people titled When I'm 64 . . . and more, which I think owes a little to the Beatles' song. That was published three years ago and last year, there appeared a second report by the Welsh Assembly Government's advisory group on a commissioner for older people in Wales.
	Among the recommendations at the end of the second chapter of that first report is the earliest mention that I have found of the proposed appointment of an older persons' commissioner. The designation of a Minister as older people's Minister with an overall responsibility for strategy is another possibility mentioned there. But it is the commissioner proposal that has pride of place, probably because, as the report notes, in Chapter 2 paragraph 9:
	"There is considerable evidence . . . that all is not well for older people. There are problems of poor housing, poverty, poor nutrition, lack of opportunity for employment, education and leisure, inadequate transport services and dissatisfaction with health and welfare provision. People perceive an imbalance of power and influence and a lack of respect. Age is seen as stigmatising and it is perceived that older people are discriminated against".
	In short, there are painful inadequacies and regrettable but preventable defects in the existing system of care and provision for the elderly that require urgent attention before more positive policies can be successfully pursued.
	I detect behind the proposal for an independent Commissioner the strong feelings and influence of organisations like Help the Aged and Age Concern, which have long been engaged with the plight of the elderly and to which we should be deeply grateful for their solicitude. So we now have a Bill to establish the office of Commissioner for Older People on much the same protective and authoritative lines as the Children's Commissioner. Thirty years ago, we might have established some kind of agency to achieve the same goals, but quangos are no longer in favour or fit for any purpose except fuelling bonfires. Commissioners are now the flavour of the month.
	A similar proposal was put forward for England in Private Members' Bills last year and the year before, but the Government have yet to accept it. They would prefer to rely on stronger central government co-ordination, with leadership from the Department for Work and Pensions, a powerful commission for equality and human rights, a forum led by the Chief Scientific Adviser to harness science and technology to the challenges of ageing, and assessment by the Audit Commission of local authorities' performance. The Audit Commission, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection are reviewing the National Service Framework for the Elderly and will report soon.
	All in all, the United Kingdom Government's paper contains a substantial programme to give a lead to a wide range of players. Noble Lords may wonder why the Assembly Government do not adopt a similar leading role rather than foist the responsibility on a commissioner. Why do they not appoint a vigorous young Minister to safeguard the elderly and promote their interests across the devolved areas of Assembly government? Why should that not suffice? I cannot answer that question fully but it is significant that there is a strong body of opinion among the voluntary organisations that there should be a commissioner, independent of all existing authorities, as the Minister said, and with the right critically to examine them, the Assembly Government included, if they fail to discharge their functions or give rise to complaints. Those organisations call for a champion to defend the rights and promote the interests of the elderly, which suggests that such considerations have not always been foremost in authorities' minds.
	The second of the reports to which I referred stresses the need to ensure that,
	"the successful candidate has a real understanding of, and empathy with, the life of older people in Wales"
	and that the selection and appointment process,
	"should meaningfully involve older people".
	There is there a real cri de caur—cri o'r galon, as we say in Welsh—that the commissioner's first loyalty should be to those whose interests he represents. Some attempt to reflect that appears in the Bill.
	With regard to the detailed provisions, we are grateful to the Minister for accepting the situation whereby we already face government amendments. The Bill broadly follows the pattern set in the legislation that established the Children's Commissioner. Noble Lords participated in the passage of that legislation and are familiar with it. I shall note only the differences between the two pieces of legislation as I see them.
	First, more of the detail in the Bill, such as the terms and duration of the commissioner's appointment, is left to the National Assembly to sort out in secondary legislation. That increased scope for, and reliance on, secondary legislation is novel and may not find favour with all Members of your Lordships' House or the other place. It leaves a lot of loose ends that we could well tie up here. I hope that the Assembly has taken to heart the Richard commission's criticism of its scrutiny, or lack thereof, of secondary legislation and that it will discuss thoroughly such legislation as arises under the Bill and not pass it on the nod. I hope, too, that the Assembly will see sense in an initial appointment for five years, renewable for a further five, subject to high-quality performance. The Minister will recall our debate on that point during the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill in the previous Session.
	Secondly, I note that the commissioner for older people will have the same powers as the High Court in respect of the examination of witnesses and the provision of information under Clause 9(7). If he is obstructed or treated with contempt, as described in Clause 10(2), he may issue a certificate to that effect to the High Court, which will deal with the matter appropriately. We had to fight for that procedure in the case of the ombudsman. I wonder what caused the Government's change of attitude.
	There may be some argument about the definition of an older person as a person aged 60 or over. The UK Government's paper refers repeatedly to "50 plus" and so do European studies on ageing problems, primarily because the difficulties of finding alternative employment seem to begin at that age. But I am inclined to leave that disputation until the Committee stage—similarly, the additional costs of setting up the commissioner's office, amounting to £2 million in the first year. Much could be done for the elderly with such a sum if it were spent directly on meeting their needs.
	We are reassured that the Bill has been generally welcomed in Wales but I cannot say more because the Assembly will not discuss the Assembly Government's Motion in support of it until tomorrow. I am assured that it will have Conservative support but I cannot anticipate the views of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, which have tabled amendments to the Assembly's Motion. Coupled with the fact that consultation on the Bill does not end until today and we do not have the Government's response to that consultation, our debate is a little premature, as the noble Lord acknowledged. But he has put the best face on it, and I accept that. The Bill promises to improve the lot of the elderly in Wales, of which I am one, and that is to be welcomed. It seems right for our times and for our circumstances in Wales.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: Indeed, my Lords, not all of us. We wish that we did not have to declare such an interest but, unfortunately, the years pass by uncontrollably.
	We welcome the opportunity to discuss ways of helping older people in Wales. The Assembly Government have done wonderful things already. Free bus travel was introduced for over-60s when the Lib-Lab coalition was in power in Cardiff. We also have free sports facilities, such as swimming pools. Free bus passes have not only helped older people but kept bus routes alive, so everybody has benefited.
	If the proposal for a commissioner for older people is realised it will be the first, not only in Europe, but in the world. As a proud Welshman I should possibly vote for it without any thought of suspicion or objection. We have an older population. In Conwy, where the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is from, and in my area nearly 27 per cent of the population is of that age group—and, of course, it is advancing over the years.
	I know that the Minister has explained to some extent why we are discussing the Bill prematurely but surely there is a massive lack of foresight. It is a mystery to me. The consultation process finishes today, and the plenary session of the Assembly will discuss and vote on the matter tomorrow. We seem to be in some strange area. I hope that we will have the results of the consultation tomorrow in the Printed Paper Office and that we will have the full results and the Assembly's decisions before Committee.
	We are also concerned that many matters in the Bill will be decided by regulations. An explanation is required from the Minister on when they will be available in draft. Will they be available in draft in Committee, or will there just be a statement of policy intent? We would like to know exactly where we stand on that.
	There was a time when, if anyone in Wales reached the age of 90, we put up the flags, called out the village band and had a massive tea party. It was wonderful. We would say, "Mrs Jones is 90 years of age". Now, it is not even a cause for comment. If someone reaches 100 years of age, we might put a note in the newspaper, but that is about all. Our people are living longer.
	It is possibly tremendous to look forward to living longer, but it brings its problems. Families are more sparse and perhaps there is no one to support the older person—for example, his or her partner might have died. So much is a disadvantage as one reaches the upper limits of that age range. People are living in isolation, which is a big problem. The families and contemporaries of a person may have gone and he or she is left alone. There is also the struggle to preserve dignity and a sense of well-being.
	We read of some instances of people in nursing or residential homes who are not well cared for. My experience is that most of those places do a first-class job. There are few cases of poor or cruel treatment. We hope that the commissioner may be in a position to look into those incidents. However, if I am right—the Minister can explain or clarify this—in Clause 4 the definition of a public service, whose functions are subject to review, is a body half of whose expenditure is met directly from payments made by the Assembly. Will any provider of residential services fall outside the scope of the commissioner's power of investigation? We would like clarification on that.
	Would the appointment of a commissioner for older people achieve its stated aims? If in any way it will, we must support it. If it will succeed where others have failed, it will have our support. The crucial question is whether the lives of the older people of Wales will be improved by this appointment. Could she or he act where the public services ombudsman cannot? Would extending the remit of the ombudsman, without establishing a whole new office, be just as effective?
	A few months ago Parliament amalgamated three ombudsmen in Wales so that there would be no confusion. People would be able to take their problems to a one-stop shop and not have to try here and there. Is the establishment of a commissioner likely to increase uncertainty and confusion? We would like an answer to that. What will be the relationship between the ombudsman and the commissioner? What will be the relationship between the commissioner and the proposed new Commission for Equality, due to start in 2006? What impact will the commissioner's work have on the Human Rights Act 1998 as it relates to older people? I am sure that the Minister will clarify those points. What will be the relationship between the commissioner's powers and the investigative duties that are already the responsibility of the Association of Directors of Social Service? That is another area that we need to be clear on.
	The cost of creating this new post, which is made up of 30 appointments, will initially be £0.5 million. Then it is estimated to be £1.5 million every year. Is that the best way of using that money? As the Minister has told us, the sum will come from the existing Assembly budget. There will not be an extra penny from the Treasury. Could that money be spent more effectively on providing other services for the elderly? Noble Lords will know of the Liberal Democrat aim to provide free personal care for the elderly, as provided in Scotland. Of course, £1.5 million will not meet that. But could some services that are not free at the moment be made freely available to the elderly?
	Could the money support voluntary organisations which are in the front line of working for the elderly—for example, the WRVS, Age Concern, local organisations for older people and carers' organisations, which, in my home area, are this week facing cuts in grant support? We know how the CAB has often struggled for financial support. Are we satisfied that the money could not be better spent in that way? Are we completely convinced that the present training courses and facilities for those who care for the elderly are as good as they could be? Would a bit more funding improve those courses?
	A big problem is that the commissioner will be able to deal only with areas of responsibility that are devolved to the Welsh Assembly. We have been told by the Minister that there will be an informal arrangement, which will make it possible for the non-devolved areas also to receive the commissioner's attention. We want more clarification on that. This could be a massive stumbling block when we come to vote on the Bill. Many of the complaints that older people have are about pensions, benefits and non-devolved matters. The CAB told me that last year, throughout the UK, there were 1.5 million complaints about pensions and benefits. Is it not crucial that the commissioner's remit include the ability to deal with those questions?
	We want to see a clear mechanism for the commissioner to contact Whitehall and Cardiff and a formal process of response. We would like the Assembly to be required to give a public response to any inquiry from the commissioner. Experience has shown that the informal mechanisms in place for the Children's Commissioner have not proved entirely satisfactory.
	We welcome the power of the commissioner to promote the development of effective and comprehensive advocacy, complaints and whistleblowing arrangements. However, we are concerned that the commissioner will have no powers to enforce any recommendations. We would like to see more protection for those whistleblowers reporting on practices which perhaps are not against criminal law, but which deny older people dignity—for example, the unacceptable treatment of an older person in a care home. There is now no protection in the Bill in an unregulated setting for the whistleblower.
	Finally, although we understand the impact that there would be on other legislation, if the definition of older people is changed to a younger age—say 50 or 55 years old—the advantage of having some flexibility would allow the commissioner where necessary to assist folk who are under the age of 60, perhaps regarding employment matters, health matters or people who have taken early retirement. For instance, in Wales, for many years we battled for rights for people who suffered from pneumoconiosis. If a commissioner is appointed—for example, as regards Alzheimer's, dementia and physical disability—is there not a case for him to have flexibility to deal with those instances?
	There are many questions to be answered. The Minister agrees that in Committee we will have our work cut out to discuss the amendments needed to make the Bill one that, in its essence, will make the lives of the older people of Wales more fulfilling and satisfying. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches look forward to further discussions and hope that the Bill will be of the sort that we will be happy to support.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, this Bill prompted me to reflect on more than 30 years of constituency experience and how the issues of the elderly were represented to us as Members of Parliament. Generally speaking—I hope that this does not sound complacent—in the constituency that I represented, I found that the voice and interests of the elderly were very powerfully represented in many cases through a wonderful variety of organisations and agencies that have worked with older people. I am thinking not only of Age Concern and Help the Aged, but also of the national Pensioners Movement, a powerful organisation capable of mobilising considerable support for its various causes. In no way should we consider this Bill as a measure which reflects badly on those agencies and organisations that carry out such a powerful job in representing the interests and wishes of older folk in our communities.
	I wondered why we would need a commissioner, but during the course of the debate the Minister has made a good case for the importance of the post. But what has convinced me to support the Bill is that the organisations I so admire because they represent and reflect the wishes of elderly people are fully in support of it. If that is what the consultation process has shown, I, too, can give the Bill my support. By the end of his speech I remain uncertain whether the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is in favour of it, but no doubt we will learn more in the course of our further debates.
	Rather than dwell on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, on the context of the Bill, I want to ask a few questions about certain issues in the Bill that are not yet quite clear.
	First I turn to a point made by other noble Lords and referred to briefly by my noble friend on the Front Bench when he said that amendments are to be brought forward to this effect. How far does the commissioner's writ run? I do not refer to the issues covered by the devolved government, but to the non-devolved areas of responsibility. Clause 2(3) empowers the commissioner to consider and make representations about any matters relating to the interests of older people. That is a pretty sweeping and general brief which presumably goes beyond the scope of the powers that have been devolved to the Assembly; that is, the commissioner can rove beyond those areas. But if he does so, what will it mean? For example—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—will the commissioner have the responsibility to consider or make representations on issues such as pensions, welfare, war pensions and the entire world of benefits? If he or she does, what will be his or her power in this respect? Will he be able to draw attention to these issues? Will the writ run in any effective way beyond the areas of devolved government?
	If so, that is a serious issue because these are UK Government matters covered by UK departments following UK policy as laid down at Westminster. Although the commissioner might offer a commentary on those policies, surely difficulties could arise if a commissioner entirely funded by the Assembly were to have some kind of extra-judicial or extra-territorial power over government departments which are accountable to the UK Government and Parliament. This point raises quite serious issues regarding areas of responsibility and accountability.
	Secondly, I turn to the question of the power to examine cases. I want to reinforce the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts: that of the relationship between this commissioner and the recently established ombudsman. For example, if the commissioner considers a case where an elderly person has been ill treated or has suffered as the result of an act of maladministration, who would pursue it? After the previous Bill we passed, I would assume that it would be a matter for the public ombudsman and not necessarily one for the commissioner. How is this to be defined? I gather from an observation made by my noble friend that the point is to be further delineated. Equally, I refer to the equality and human rights commission, a United Kingdom body, which will have the power to deal with issues of age discrimination. The relevant Bill is about to come before the House. Again, how will that relationship work?
	Thirdly, I turn to the appointment of the commissioner, a matter left entirely to regulation. While I support strongly the structure and framework of this Bill, and while it may seem that I am seeking the best of both worlds, I question leaving the appointment of the commissioner entirely to Assembly regulation. I do so for only one reason. The commissioner will have the right to scrutinise the National Assembly for Wales itself. If the Assembly is to conduct the process of appointment and ultimately make it, how can we ensure that that process will be safeguarded and consistent with the idea of the absolute independence of the commissioner? We had interesting debates on this point on the establishment of the public ombudsman, and the question arises again in the context of the Bill. I hope that during our deliberations on the Bill both in this House and in the other place, we will be given some idea of the Assembly's thinking on this issue and perhaps receive an assurance on the independence not only of the process of appointment, but also on the commissioner's subsequent position. That is well worth considering.
	Clause 14 provides the power for the commissioner to report and make recommendations. Will he also have the power to recommend a remedy in a case of the ill-treatment of an elderly person? If so, what kind of remedy is envisaged and what power will the commissioner have in responding to such a case? Again, the issue of overlap with the ombudsman and others arises here.
	These questions tumble from the Bill for one simple and basic reason. It is rather different from the Bill to establish the Children's Commissioner for Wales and I welcome it for that reason. In this respect I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. The Bill for the commissioner for children provided much greater detail on the functions and role of the post, but the Bill before us is much more a piece of framework legislation. Here we are maximising the right of the Assembly to make regulations and to fill out the Bill in ways that previous legislation did not.
	Does this Bill foreshadow the kind of legislation we are likely to see as a part of the further development of the devolution settlement? I say that because one of the fundamental recommendations of the Richard commission, set out in chapter 13 of his report, suggested that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament should draft Bills in a framework way so as to allow the maximum degree of legislative competence to be bestowed on the Assembly. I should declare an interest as a member of that commission and a passionate support of chapter 13. I believe that it is one of the most sensible ways of further developing the legislative process of the devolution settlement. Given that, I shall forgo the kind of detailed arguments we would normally have about what should be set out in the Bill if I can be assured that it does foreshadow the kind of framework legislation we are going to see. If that is the case, I shall certainly give it my fullest support. As I have said, I am a passionate supporter of that process. I believe that we will create a more effective and developing legislative partnership between both Houses in this Parliament and the Assembly. We would have a democratic legislative trinity: the Commons, the Lords and the Assembly.
	We will also be able to utilise and develop the scrutiny skills of Members of the other place and of this House, as well as the scrutiny skills that are developing, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, in the Welsh Assembly. We can maximise the democratic resources available to us to ensure that we get the best possible legislation. If that is the case, and this is the kind of Bill that we will see in future, I shall give it my strongest support.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I am pleased to be taking part in this Second Reading debate, partly because the Labour Party included the establishment of a commissioner for older people as a commitment in its manifesto for the 2003 elections to the Welsh Assembly. Through the Assembly, we have seen that the people of Wales want the commissioner.
	When the Bill for the Children's Commissioner for Wales was debated in your Lordships' House, we felt that it was good to be able to say that Wales was the first country in the UK to have such a commissioner. The Children's Commissioner for Wales was so well received that we now have children's commissioners in the rest of the United Kingdom. We can be proud of the fact that children's commissioners started in Wales and are such a good thing that everybody wants one. I am sure that that will happen when we establish our Commissioner for Older People.
	We had a briefing meeting last week in which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Wales Office, Nick Ainger, said that the Commissioner for Older People would be the first in the UK and probably the first in the world. That is why we are finding our way on a number of issues. There is no model: we are developing our own in Wales. We can all feel proud of the fact that Wales is once again leading the world.
	A number of noble Lords have said that Wales has an ageing population. A higher proportion of the population in Wales is over the age of 60 than in the rest of the UK, and the number of people over the age of 85 is about one-third higher. With people living longer, there will be a need for care and support services to enable older people to lead independent lives as far as possible. As other noble Lords have said, we have particular problems in Wales. Research has shown that, for some older people in Wales, poor housing, poverty and poor nutrition are particular concerns. But, as noble Lords have also said, on the plus side, people are living longer, and that is something about which we can all rejoice.
	With a commissioner for older people, we will be able to deal with many of the issues relating to older people and assist them to lead independent lives. In the briefing last week, the Deputy Minister responsible for older people in the Welsh Assembly Government, John Griffiths, said the commissioner would be,
	"A champion and a strong voice for older people"
	We used a similar remark when we were debating the Children's Commissioner, who has proved to be a champion and a strong voice for the children of Wales. If the Commissioner for Older People can be seen in that light, it can only be for the good. The Bill has much support in Wales from the charities and voluntary groups that provide for older people.
	Noble Lords have already spoken about the definition of what it is to be old, and we could debate it for some time. In the context of the Bill, the definition of "older person" is someone aged 60 or more. We know that sometimes the age can be as young as 50 or as old as 75. I can understand the difficulties of determining when one become an older person as far as the Bill is concerned. I am sure that all noble Lords have received the same briefing from the Law Society. It says:
	"A more pragmatic definition should be adopted to allow the commissioner discretion to help people aged 50 and over".
	It gives the reason that,
	"This would be particularly relevant in employment matters for people who have taken early retirement, and in health matters, for example those suffering the early onset of dementia and physical disability".
	As other noble Lords have mentioned, we have precedents in Wales for defining older people as 60, such as the free bus pass and free swimming schemes. There are also a few other precedents that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned. I am sure that we will discuss the matter later in Committee. Can the Minister say why older people are defined as those over the age of 60 and whether any thought has been given to having some flexibility in the definition?
	There are concerns that there could be some overlap with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which will be established by the Equality Bill that will have its Second Reading in your Lordships' House tomorrow. With that new commission dealing with age discrimination, the roles of the two bodies will need to be clearly defined. As we go through this Bill and the Equality Bill, we may be able to work out what the overlap is and how we can clearly define matters. I hope that, if there are any difficulties, we will be able to resolve them.
	I would like to raise Clause 12(1)(a) with the Minister. Concerns have been raised about it by Help the Aged in Wales. The clause provides that the commissioner will have the power to,
	"enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purpose of interviewing an older person accommodated or cared for there".
	It is not clear whether the term "private dwelling" includes care settings owned and operated by the independent or private sector or refers specifically to the individual older person's private residence. If the Minister could clarify that the definition of "private dwelling" meant the individual older person's private residence, it would help to alleviate the concerns expressed by Help the Aged in Wales.
	We all understand that the Bill is modelled on the legislation for the Children's Commissioner. When the Children's Commissioner was appointed, children were involved in his appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said. I believe that children interviewed the candidates and said who they thought was the best one. I know that we are in the early stages of this Bill, but does the Minister think that it would be a good idea for that model to be used and for older people in Wales to have a say in the appointment when the interviews take place? It would be great if that could happen.
	We have the makings of a good Bill, even though, as some noble Lords have said, it is bit premature. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed. It has been welcomed throughout Wales by the charities and voluntary groups that support older people. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to reading the analysis of the consultation, which ends today, that the Welsh Assembly has been conducting on the Bill. I am sure that that consultation will assist and inform us during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.

Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lucid explanation of the Bill and for arranging the helpful meeting with the Welsh Assembly Deputy Minister and officials last Thursday. I also wish to express my appreciation for the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. They were very thoughtful contributions.
	I warmly welcome the Bill. It is of considerable importance to a great many people in Wales. As we have heard, it is also a unique development. It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is of interest far beyond Wales.
	The Bill is important for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious reason is the fact that there are about 620,000 older people in Wales. Secondly, it will help to safeguard the dignity of the older citizen and enhance his or her standard of life by ensuring that services are readily and equally available to every older person who needs them.
	The third reason, although this may not be so obvious at first sight, is that in many households the Bill should also bring help to the members of the family who care for a very elderly parent. Sometimes the carer himself or herself can also be helped. In such cases the Bill will help the whole family.
	For those reasons alone the Bill has caught the public eye. There is a wide measure of agreement in Wales in favour of a Bill along the lines of the present one, but it would, of course, have been the cause of some concern if the Minister had claimed that the Bill was perfect. Happily, the Bill does not raise any major political or philosophical question, subject to the very important point about non-devolved services to which my noble friend Lord Rowlands referred.
	Like the Children's Commissioner, the commissioner cannot directly pursue with Whitehall departments issues which call for a solution by those departments. There are many such issues, for example, in regard to social security benefits, employment regulations, the Inland Revenue, the DVLA and others. If the commissioner attempted to raise any of these issues with a Whitehall department he would be stopped dead in his tracks by Clauses 2(2), 9(2)(a), 13(2)(a) and 14(2). This is a fundamental point that has been raised on many occasions in your Lordships' House. I believe that there is a genuine difference of opinion which is symptomatic of a difference in philosophy.
	We heard from the Minister that the estimated annual running costs will be about £1.5 million. That is not a very large sum. I am slightly worried at the starkness of the advisory group's analysis of the scale of the problem—which is quite clearly with us in Wales for the present and, indeed, for the foreseeable future—yet the funding is limited to £1.5 million annually. I want to be fair to the Minister—I am bound to accept that that is the estimate put forward by the advisory group—but, given that the client group, if I may use that phrase, is very large, is there not a real risk that the office may not be adequately resourced to meet the demands on it? The Minister touched on this issue in his opening speech and has given us certain assurances.
	The commissioner will discharge many functions, but it seems to me that he will be primarily concerned with safeguarding and enhancing what is described in the Bill as,
	"the interests of older people in Wales".
	These words appear in about six different subsections throughout the Bill. Their meaning is defined in Clause 18 in these terms:
	"In considering, for the purposes of this Act, what constitutes the interests of older people in Wales, the Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Principles for Older Persons adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1991".
	I warmly welcome the fundamental duty defined in Clause 18. I recall how we endeavoured in vain to introduce a similar duty in the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001.
	I should now like to add to the questionnaire my noble friend will answer when he comes to wind up. My questions seek clarification and are designed to strengthen existing clauses.
	We must bear in mind that this Bill was requested by the Welsh Assembly. It is our duty to facilitate the passage of a Bill that has been so requested. Therefore, some of the questions which have today been addressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench should be addressed in the National Assembly and answered by National Assembly Ministers. It is not for us to question the fundamental principle of the Bill.
	In what circumstances will Clause 9 operate? Under the clause, the commissioner may examine individual cases of particular persons. Will he be acting on a reference to him by the elderly person himself or herself? If so, is there not a risk that his role and that of the public services ombudsman will be blurred? On the other hand, if the commissioner acts on his own motion, what preliminary hurdle will have to be surmounted before he will exercise this function? In other words, what is Clause 9 intended to cover? What is it aimed at? I invite my noble friend to explain the kinds of cases which may be examined and the circumstances in which the examination may be made.
	I turn now to Clause 12, which has been referred to by a number of speakers today. The clause defines the commissioner's right to enter premises and of interviewing in private. The clause excludes the right to enter a private dwelling. I confess that it is the subject of slight unease on my part. One day a real problem will arise where the commissioner will think that he ought to visit and interview an elderly person living or being cared for in a private dwelling house, who is deeply in need or thought to be in need of his advice, and who may not be able to express himself or herself on paper. I am concerned that in those circumstances the elderly person may not have recourse to the commissioner's help.
	I readily recognise that this may be quite a difficult problem. The Minister may confirm that the answer can be found in another statute. If so, it would seem that there is no difficulty.
	I welcome Clause 11, which empowers the commissioner, after consultation, to produce guidance on best practice. The case for a code of practice has, by now, been well made. But I note that the guidance does not have to be examined and approved by the Assembly before it is issued. I wonder whether that is wise.
	There are two other difficulties. First, in the Bill as it stands, the guidance will be without any legal significance. Secondly, the commissioner will not be empowered to monitor compliance with it. The guidance on best practice is potentially a very good device for helping the commissioner to bring about improved standards of service. It would be powerfully reinforced if it were to be given some legal significance, such as providing for the guidance to be taken into account by a magistrate or judge trying a civil or criminal case. The guidance would also be powerfully strengthened if it were backed by giving the commissioner power to monitor compliance with it. To my mind, those are worrying omissions. Unless they are addressed I feel that the guidance will fail to meet the high hopes that are placed in it.
	I have spoken for more than 10 minutes, which seems a very long time for a contribution meant essentially to say that I support the Bill. But the Bill did stimulate a few suggestions for strengthening the office and which the Minister may or may not wish to consider.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and informative debate and I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it has been very thoughtful indeed. He has looked very hard at the legal implications—or lack of them—in the Bill and I pay tribute to him for that. I have no wish to repeat what the noble Lord has just said, but the Minister should take due account—as I am sure he will—of his comments that some aspects of the legal force of the Bill do not appear to be adequate.
	As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno said, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill in principle. Some 660,000 people—22 per cent of the population—in Wales are over 60. As others have said, demography will change and in a very short time, 25 per cent of the population of Wales—in the region of 800,000—will be over 60. We have heard the forecast that that will go up to 28 per cent.
	There is no doubt that in principle the Commissioner for Older People is a very good idea. However, when one examines the Bill, comparison with the Children's Commissioner is not wholly sustainable. As have many have said in this debate, many UK policies impact directly on older people on a UK basis. That is especially the case with pensions, benefits and employment. In that respect, the Bill differs significantly from the Children's Commissioner Bill. There is more involvement of UK government departments.
	Pensions, benefits and employment are not within the scope of the Assembly or the Welsh Assembly Government. Those functions are crucial to the well-being of older people in Wales, yet the commissioner will have very little or no impact. That was said very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, whose excellent speech brought out many of these points.
	These points lead to other comments about the powers of the National Assembly combined with the timing of this Bill. I accept wholeheartedly the Minister's generous apology and the way that he has sought to correct the problem and let us have more information. It is clearly good that we are debating the Bill early in this Parliament, but the Welsh Assembly Government were not expecting to have this Bill coming here so early in the Session. Why is that? Reference was made to the public consultation not being quite finished, but we will get some of the information. However, it is a pity that we did not have before us today many cogent comments which, I am sure, have been drafted by many in Wales. The timing issue has, for the reasons stated, complicated this debate.
	However, surely the Welsh Assembly Government ought to be able to initiate and legislate by itself. It cannot do that because of weaknesses in the Government of Wales Act 1998 which did not give the Assembly primary powers to legislate. Primary powers would achieve a logical progression of the process, better informed debate in the Assembly and therefore better legislation. The issues of non-specific statutes in the Bill and a lot of regulation are not entirely satisfactory. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said about the framework issue and that it may be a new way of going forward. We must remember that paragraph 13 in the Richard Commission report is really a halfway house. We should ask whether we would get into a significant tangle in the legislative process if there were a government with a different complexion in Westminster.
	The whole area of pensions, benefits and employment is vital. Speaking as a former MP, the amount of work done sorting out the problems of the elderly, as many noble Lords will know, is massive, working especially with CABs. The plight of pensioners is often financial. Indeed, injustices are sometimes legion as well. I certainly found that, especially in relation to women who had employment breaks. Sadly, many pensioners often end up very poor indeed. These are huge issues to do with the welfare of pensioners. For example, I can quote someone who was with the 8th Army in El Alamein who is now 85 and is suddenly confronted by not one but a multiplicity of benefit forms issued by the Inland Revenue.
	I also know of a widow with a pension, whose case I came upon, who, back in time, worked in an explosives factory during the Second World War and had her fingers blown off. She never received any compensation. We constantly have problems of that kind.
	The benefits hurdle is an obstacle course and many millions are not claiming entitlements yet are living in poverty. That is a huge problem which I am sure the commissioner will want to address. One knows of many cases of people in that situation; people who are not able to fill in the forms. Even though assistance is available, they are not actually connecting.
	In my own experience, having been put out of work at the age of 56, employment for older people is not an easy experience. Certainly, I did two years and then had to reapply for my own job because the body was privatised. I had to undergo a psychological test, which many people in the Chamber may agree that I needed. However, it was not a pleasant experience, I can assure you. Indeed, it was discrimination in one sense because I was awarded only short-term contracts all the time and I never knew when the sword of Damocles was about to fall, which it eventually did.
	Where is the commissioner's place within these problems, which are the purview of Whitehall departments—pension rights, benefit rights and employment rights?
	I declare an interest in several sectors in the state of the elderly. I belong to an organisation called Prime Cymru which helps people between 50 and 65 to start up businesses. We have a target of 40,000 businesses out of a population of 250,000 in Wales and we have created 1,000 new businesses in three years. I will not go into all the details, but they are absolutely fascinating, like finding one's own Welsh roots on the Internet and so on.
	There are problems, particularly within the care sector, where different standards operate, for example in local authority and private care homes. In The commissioner will be able to address problems in local authority care homes, but in some instances councils have turned them over to BUPA, which has paid lower wages and asked for longer hours. As a result the quality of care has gone down. I am not singling BUPA out—the same is true of other bodies.
	The financing of private homes is very difficult because it is dependent on benefit and many homes have closed. In some instances couples have tragically been parted as a result of a sudden closure of a home. These are all issues which we hope the commissioner will be able to investigate. There are big problems within the elderly sector and in many cases the voluntary sector is picking up the pieces and doing extremely well. But the finance for the voluntary sector is very difficult as the funding is very often being reduced every year. I know that from experience through my involvement in various areas, in particular with a disabled club that has many elderly people. Dial-a-ride services, for example, are very difficult to keep going in rural areas.
	The commissioner should be able to get involved in many of these intractable problems. He needs investigative and enforcement powers to ensure that these measures are taken. We will judge this Bill in its final form, when we will take a decision—I hope a constructive one—on whether to establish a commissioner for the elderly. But we would like free care for the elderly, and we would like council tax to be replaced by a local income tax, which would reduce the poverty levels of the elderly. We believe that these policies would improve their quality of life.
	The key question is whether the creation of the commissioner will improve the quality of life for the elderly. If so, we certainly will support the Bill. If not, then we will have to have a think about it.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I start by echoing my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and thanking and congratulating everybody on the level of contributions that we have had to this debate in the past hour or so.
	It is an indication of how interesting the debate has been that so many questions have been asked. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I felt question overload developing; I stopped counting at the fifteenth question. As it is a beautiful evening and as people will not wish me to speak for 40 minutes to answer all the questions that have been raised—and I can hear my noble friend Lord Rooker saying "Thank goodness for that", as he is waiting to deal with three orders—I plan to go quickly through the contributions and then write to everybody with detailed answers to the very many questions.
	I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. The contributions have been both terrifically helpful and extremely interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, gave a typically polished contribution, welcoming the Bill and raising a number of issues that we will return to in Committee. We discuss the period of office yet again—perhaps we could just agree now that it should be the same as we agreed for the ombudsman and get something out of the way. The discussion raised some interesting questions which we will come back to.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked so many questions that I lost count—as did the people in the Box—but we have answers to all of them. He was asking about regulations and in addition to the memorandum that we will be submitting to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we shall make available before Committee stage a note on the intentions of the Assembly in respect of the exercise of subordinate legislation powers in the Bill. The noble Lord asked why so much of the detail is being left to regulations—he will see that the draft regulations and the Bill's provisions relate to an area of law which is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It is therefore appropriate for the powers to make delegated legislation to be vested in the Assembly. All subordinate legislation subject to this procedure is debated in plenary and not taken, as in the Commons, to a Standing Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked if any provider of regulated services will fall outside the scope of the commissioner. The providers of regulated services are subject to the remit of the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. The purpose of the commissioner is not to duplicate the work of the inspectorate. Private providers could not be added to the list of persons in Schedule 2 as they are not public bodies. The noble Lord asked if it would be better to extend the remit of the public services ombudsman for Wales. The focus of the ombudsman is to deal with maladministration. The focus of the commissioner is much wider; he will be a champion with much wider powers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, and others asked why is there no commissioner for England and why we need one for Wales. The UK Government do not want, at present, to establish a UK commissioner for older people. There will be a new powerful UK Cabinet sub-committee on ageing policy which will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Its remit will be to drive forward the UK ageing strategy as described in Opportunity Age.
	A number of questions have been asked about the funding and the costs. We will return to these in Committee where I hope we may have some more accurate information. The size of the relevant client groups is similar for both commissioners. There are 674,600 people aged 60 and over in Wales and there are approximately 700,000 people under 18. The functions and powers proposed for the Commissioner for Older People closely mirrors those of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. It therefore makes sense that this proposed level of funding represents an appropriate estimate and that is why we are comparing the two costing centres.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, asked how we will ensure that the commissioner can follow up on issues on which he has issued guidance to ensure that the bodies concerned comply with it. The commissioner is empowered to issue best practice guidance under Clause 11. Using his supplementary powers the commissioner would also be able to publish this guidance, thus making it widely available to service users and interested parties. This in turn will help to raise expectations and drive up standards.
	Finally—that is, finally as far as I am concerned, but not as far as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is concerned—the noble Lord asked the question of how we ensure that joint working is enabled with the CEHR and duplication is avoided. I have a six-page answer to that question which I have absolutely no intention of reading out. I shall pass it on to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, after the debate.
	My noble friend Lord Rowlands welcomed the Bill, for which I am extremely grateful. He asked a number of questions, and was praised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for the perspicacity of those questions. Briefly I shall deal with one or two of them.
	The noble Lord asked, as my noble friend Lady Gale did, about the appointments procedure. The Assembly Government's Commissioner Advisory Group felt strongly about that. It considered that the model of involving children and young people in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner represented good practice, and that it ought to form the basis for the procedure to be adopted for the selection and appointment of the Commissioner for Older People. It recommended that the appointment process,
	"should ensure that the successful candidate has a real understanding of, and empathy with, older people in Wales".
	The group also recommended that it should meaningfully involve older people in the selection. We can give reassurance on that point.
	My noble friend Lord Rowlands asked about the relationship of the commissioner with directors of social services. Local authorities appear in Schedules 2 and 3. The commissioner will be able to review the way in which social services directors discharge their functions and the arrangements that they make for advocacy, complaints and whistle-blowing.
	My noble friend also asked about non-devolved matters. We recognise that a range of reserved issues are important to older people in Wales, including pensions, taxation, law and order and benefits. The commissioner will therefore be able to make representations to the National Assembly for Wales about any matter relating to the interests of older people in Wales, whether it is a devolved or non-devolved issue. The commissioner will be able to issue guidance on best practice,
	"in connection with matters raised relating to the interests of older people in Wales".
	That position is entirely consistent with the current constitutional context and mirrors the current arrangements for the Children's Commissioner. Using this Bill to bring about changes to the devolution settlement would be outwith its scope and entirely inappropriate.
	I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale for speaking so warmly in favour of the Bill. She raised the question of how it was decided that an older person was one who had reached the age of 60. The Assembly advisory group was undecided about what the definition of older people should be. It saw merit in setting the age for qualifications for the commissioner's help at 65, or 50, in line with the strategy for older people, and recommended that those two options and a compromise of 65, with discretion to help those aged over 50, should be put to public consultation. It was put to public consultation, and the listening assembly decided to set the age at 60. That pragmatic solution was agreed.
	My noble friend Lady Gale also referred to the briefing of Help the Aged. Clause 12 sets out the commissioner's powers of entry. That power would enable him or her to enter any premises other than a private dwelling to interview an older person accommodated or cared for there in connection with carrying out his function of review or discharge of function.
	I believe that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for his contribution. He raised a number of issues which I shall deal with well before the Committee stage. He expressed concern that the commissioner cannot pursue with UK departments issues that are not devolved. We recognise that a range of reserved issues are important to older people in Wales, including pensions, taxation and benefits. The commissioner will therefore be able to make representations to the National Assembly for Wales on matters relating to the interests of older people in Wales. I mentioned in my opening remarks the arrangements made between the Wales Office and the Children's Commissioner; I reiterate that those arrangements will apply in this case too.
	My noble friend also asked about the funding question, and whether £1.5 million is adequate. We shall be looking very carefully at that over the next few weeks and will hope to come to Committee with some more positive figures, although they will be linked to the cost of the Children's Commission, as we believe is appropriate and sensible.
	My noble friend also asked what Clause 9 was intended to cover. The Assembly will make regulations to allow the commissioner to examine the cases of particular older people in Wales in connection with his functions. The commissioner's power can extend to examining the case of someone who is no longer an older person in Wales—that is, somebody who has passed away before the Bill comes into force. The commissioner may also make payments to persons who attend or provide information, explanations or assistance to him in his examinations.
	My noble friend also asked in what circumstances Clause 9 would operate, and whether it would require a reference from the older person. A complaint will need to be made to the commissioner to initiate an examination. However, when the older person is not able to make the complaint, it may be made by someone on his behalf. That will be dealt with in regulations.
	That was a quick run-through of some of the questions that I have been asked. However, as I said at the start, I am conscious that there were a huge number of questions, all of which will be answered promptly. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive approach to this Bill, and for not giving me a hard time—as they might well have done—on the basis that we are having a Second Reading of this Bill on the day before it is discussed in National Assembly for Wales.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21 February be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the direction made under Section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 made on 1 April by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Member for Torfaen, and laid before this House on 4 April, be approved. It gives me no pleasure to bring the direction before your Lordships' House tonight, but it is necessary.
	The direction took effect on 29 April and removed Sinn Fein's entitlement to the financial assistance payable to Northern Ireland political parties for 12 months from that date. The approval of both Houses of Parliament is, of course, required. I understand that the House of Commons will deal with the issue later this week. The background to the direction will be familiar to your Lordships so I can be brief. However, it may be helpful if I summarise the key events before turning to the substance of the direction.
	The direction follows the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission that was laid in Parliament and published on 10 February—I believe that it was the fourth report—on the Northern Bank robbery and other crimes that it attributed to the Provisional IRA. The International Monitoring Commission's report stated that Sinn Fein must bear its share of responsibility for the incidents to which it referred, and it recommended that the Secretary of State should consider exercising the powers he has in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly to impose financial measures on Sinn Fein; that is, a financial penalty.
	The matters that lie behind the direction have been debated here on a number of occasions. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a Statement in the other place on 11 January in the immediate aftermath of the Northern Bank robbery. My noble friend the Leader of the House repeated that Statement in your Lordships' House on the same day. The Statement set out the impact of the robbery on the political process and the damaging effect that it had had on the Government's efforts to restore the devolved institutions.
	The then Secretary of State made a further Statement in the other place on 22 February after the publication of the Independent Monitoring Commission's report on the Northern Bank robbery. He said that, having reflected on the commission's report, he had concluded that it would be appropriate to make a direction to remove Sinn Fein's entitlement to financial assistance. The direction would be for 12 months, the maximum permitted under the legislation. As required, he would take into account any representations made by Sinn Fein before reaching a final decision. The Statement was repeated in your Lordships' House the same day. Having provided Sinn Fein with an opportunity to make representations, the then Secretary of State decided that it would be appropriate to make a direction, and, as I said, he did so on 1 April.
	Your Lordships will know that there was a further debate in the other place on 10 March on the Government's Motion to suspend Sinn Fein's entitlement to Westminster allowances for 12 months.
	I turn to the substance of the direction. It removes Sinn Fein's entitlement to payments under the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Scheme for 12 months from 29 April 2005. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the second such direction against Sinn Fein. A similar financial penalty was imposed for the period from 29 April 2004 to 28 April 2005, following the Independent Monitoring Commission's first report in April 2004. That report attributed an attempted abduction to the Provisional IRA, and the Independent Monitoring Commission recommended that financial measures be imposed on Sinn Fein.
	There was support in the various debates that I have mentioned for action to be taken. The need for the direction reflects the problems that have blighted the political process in Northern Ireland; that is, ongoing paramilitary activity, criminality and untold incidents of sheer gangsterism. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it absolutely clear that that has to stop and be seen to stop for there to be progress. As I said, it gives me no pleasure to have to bring the matter before the House. We very much hope that in the period ahead we shall see movement from the Provisional IRA that ensures that the final transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is achieved. That is our first priority, and it is our overwhelming desire.
	On the assumption that that movement occurs, there will continue to be an important role for the Independent Monitoring Commission in attesting that the reality matches the commitments. Moreover, the Independent Monitoring Commission has a responsibility in relation to all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, from whatever source it comes. It has published a more recent report on which the Government will pronounce in due course.
	I want, therefore, to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the commission for their reports and for the contribution that they make to promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. I commend the direction to the House.
	Moved, That the direction laid before the House on 4 April be approved—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Barker: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in light of their consultation under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 on the provision of information to those who have been adopted, what issues were brought to light concerning those who are in care and how their needs for information and access to services have been considered.
	My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords who have agreed to speak in this debate. In particular I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whose presence makes it possible for us to have the debate.
	As can be deduced, not least from the brevity of the speakers' list, this is a very technical and small area of policy, but it is one of immense importance to an untold number of people.
	Some speakers may choose to focus their remarks on difficulties experienced by young people who have been in care since the passage of the Children Act 1989 and perhaps even in the light of the work being carried out to implement the Children Act 2004. However, in the time available to me I wish to concentrate on the legacy of care decisions made in the past on adults who are now much older.
	As noble Lords may have deduced from the Question before the House, this matter was inspired by the case of an individual who was in care as a child and whose subsequent attempts to find out what happened to him when he was in care have been met with such a lack of information that he now has good reason to doubt that the identity that he has is correct. He has no way of finding out whether what he has been told by the statutory authorities is true.
	This debate is not about seeking justice for an individual or commenting on individual cases. It is an opportunity to shed light on an area of policy and practice that has been overlooked: access to personal information and personal data for people who have been looked after and sometimes refer to themselves as having been in local authority foster care. In doing so, I want to examine the contrast between the rights of people who have been adopted and those of people who were in care, and to suggest some ways in which these anomalies could be addressed.
	The Association of Directors of Social Services in a briefing paper produced in 2000, entitled The Archiving and Destruction of Records for Children in Care/Looked After, provides a helpful historical summary of the legislative framework for record keeping about children who have been looked after during the past century. In that paper, the ADSS points out that requests for information or records of children in care differ greatly depending on whether they predate the Children Act 1989.
	Requests for information prior to that time usually come under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and the Adoption Act 1976. The main regulations that dealt with requirements were the Boarding Out of Children Regulations 1955, which set out the only requirements for maintaining individual casework records and registers. They remained in force until the Boarding Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations 1988, which came into force in June 1989. Those were then followed by new regulations under the Children Act, which came into force in 1991: SI 1991/890, which require local authorities to maintain records for children looked after by them until after their 75th birthday.
	From 1955 to 1989 there was a tremendous amount of local government reorganisation across the whole country. Perhaps the biggest and most significant was in 1974. Children's services were often transferred between different entities during successive local government reorganisations and records were lost. Given that employees or organisations come and go and corporate memory fades, my first suggestion to the Minister is that each local authority should now be issued with guidance that consolidates the responsibilities for record-keeping and retention and destruction throughout the past 75 years. Furthermore, that document should be available, together with a record of all the services in geographical areas for which any authority was responsible, combined with information about those other authorities that have assumed or relinquished those services when boundaries have changed. Such a document would enable people seeking information to understand the statutory requirements on each authority at given times and therefore to know what they can reasonably expect to find. It would also provide a basis on which staff currently responsible for data protection and retention could audit their present records. Such an exercise could form the basis of a review of record-keeping and the lessons learned would be invaluable, as we are about to go through yet another huge reorganisation of children's services with children's trusts.
	The Data Protection Act makes a distinction between personal information and personal data. As I understand it, only personal data are accessible to an individual, and for personal information to be considered personal data it must pass a test. The information must be sufficiently biographical and it must affect a person's privacy in a personal, family, business or professional way.
	The information must have an individual as its main focus. A document that might have significant personal and private information has to have that person as its focus. If it does not, the person may not be entitled to see it. For example, a family casework file would perhaps not be determined to be personal data although personal data about an individual might be held within it. That distinction between personal data and personal information is frequently crucial to people seeking to find out essential points about their early life.
	Provision of information is not a simple clerical or administrative task. It is a difficult and sensitive issue that requires skill and judgment—one for which social care staff need thorough training. In the review of local authorities' information given being conducted by Bath, it has emerged that many people working in children's departments now are asking for training to enable them to deal with such tasks.
	If personal data are supplied by a third party in the expectation that they will remain confidential, authorities have no obligation to release the data unless the consent of the third party is obtained. Often authorities justify the holding of personal data by citing their common law duty of confidentiality to other parties; for example, birthparents. Statutory Instrument 2000/415 granted local authorities the right to withhold a care subject's data on the grounds that releasing those data is likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the care subject or to another. I ask the Minister whether the department will provide statistics on how many exemptions have been granted using that order.
	People who have been in care have a right to an independent appeal to the Information Commissioner when a local authority refuses access to their personal data. Will the Minister tell the House how many such appeals are made each year and how many are upheld?
	Third-party data usually include the very thing people want to know: the names and details of their birth relatives. Third-party data that impact on a care leaver's childhood and early development should not be withheld. If such data are withheld, that can be challenged on the basis of a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The case of Gaskin in 1989 and the MG case of 2002 have established that a proper balancing exercise must be taken when a third party's right to data privacy conflicts with the care leaver's right to know or understand his childhood or early development.
	The problem is that under current guidance a local authority is not required to tell an individual that information has been withheld, nor to give the reasons why it has been withheld. Therefore, many people will not be in a position to challenge an authority's conduct and bring an appeal to the Information Commissioner. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, people who were adopted will have recourse to an independent reviewing officer to establish whether their care files have been correctly managed. It cannot be right that we have two groups of people who have been in different types of care, which has had a similar effect on their lives, but they have completely different rights in law.
	Increasingly, research has been produced that demonstrates that the need to understand what happened to a person when they were a child is a life-long need. Many people who were adopted choose not to trace their birth relatives until a significant life event happens to them, such as the birth of their own children or the death of an adopted relative. Research from the Coram Family shows that 48 is the average age at which former care leavers seek information about their time in care. However, while the Children (Leaving Care) Act establishes welcome rights for children leaving care to have recourse to information about what happened to them in their early years, it relates only to people up to the age of 24. There is a generation of people about whose entry into care and what happened to them was cloaked in secrecy, and they have no right to go and find out who they are or what happened to them.
	As a result of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, there is now a robust system whereby people who were adopted and birth relatives can, with the consent of either party, find out what has happened to each other. The state no longer acts as a gatekeeper or a barrier to keep blood relatives apart. It is high time that in relation to looked-after children and former looked-after children the role of the state becomes similarly that of a facilitator. It is not for the state to determine family relationships. It is the role of the state to facilitate individuals to make choices for themselves about their family relations. It should be possible for intermediary bodies to assist former looked-after children to search for information about themselves and about their families. If intermediary bodies were given such a responsibility, the task would be independent of local authorities, and for people whose experiences of care were often horrendous that independence would be important. It would also enable the activity of tracing and establishing contact to be registered and regulated under the Care Standards Act, thereby ensuring that the quality standards that this House recognised as being important, such as the provision of counselling, could be upheld.
	The 2000 guidance to social services departments about how to implement the Data Protection Act 1998 is no longer available on the web. Will the Minister tell us why? Are there plans to make it available electronically? It does not bode well for the future development of good practice if it, or something similar, is not available. Will the Minister give the House an update on the proposals for changes to civil registration? I have here the mammoth document from the Office for National Statistics. I gather that the regulatory reform order has dropped from the Minute Paper of your Lordships' House. The Government have been made aware of the deep concern that has been caused by proposals to introduce abbreviated birth certificates and the widely held fear that this will make it almost impossible in the future for people to gather patrilineal information.
	In the short time available to me, I have tried to demonstrate that an untold number of people are being denied access to information about themselves that all of us take for granted. It is time to ensure that we uphold our obligations under the UN Convention and the Human Rights Act by putting in place procedures that are fair and easily understood and are delivered to acceptable standards across the whole country. Voluntary organisations have increasingly adopted practices that reflect their understanding that their duty of care to individuals goes on long, long after the time when they were looked-after. It is high time that statutory authorities did so too and were given the resources to implement good practice. Put simply, in this day and age no one should be denied access to basic information about their own identity.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Barker for giving us the opportunity to shed some light on this small but important area of policy.
	I read recently that the number of children going into care is rising, that their age is getting lower, and that they are staying in care longer. I am afraid that I do not remember where I read that but, if it is true—I am sure the Minister will tell us if it is not—it means that in future there will be even more people who have spent a long time in care, who obviously will have been affected by it and who may need information in order to reconcile themselves with their background. It seems that that group of people are some sort of second-class citizens as far as rights to information and services are concerned, compared with their brothers and sisters—and they may be brothers and sisters—who have been adopted.
	This morning, I attended the memorial service for the late Earl Russell, at which my noble friend Lady Hamwee made a brilliant speech that really captured the essence of Conrad. Later in the service, a piece of Conrad's own elegant prose was read out, the subject of which was "know yourself". His reason for saying how important it is to know yourself—a subject on which we are all most expert—was so that one has the confidence never to let anyone do us down or write us off. Let us not underestimate the effect on the sense of identity of a person who has either been adopted or gone into care so young that he does not remember his parents or anything about the circumstances of his family life. Knowledge of those things is psychologically of great importance to the sense of self and to the ability to cope with whatever life throws at us.
	To illustrate that, let me tell your Lordships about two people that I know. Both of them were adopted, but the same issues are just as strongly at work among those who have been "adopted by corporate parents", as it were—by the state. Indeed, their life chances are worse, so they need more consideration and not less. The first example is one of my own brothers. I say that he is my brother because that is how I think of him. He is the child of my mother's much-loved sister who died in childbirth, so he is really my cousin. When I was three, my mother brought a new baby brother home and, as I was so young, I did not know that he had not come through the "usual channels". He was brought up as my brother, and two more siblings came along later in the normal way.
	None of us can remember when we first learned that Uncle Jim was really his daddy. We knew from an early age that he was our cousin but he was also our brother. I do not know how my parents managed it, but they told us all the truth just when they believed that each of us was ready to deal with it. When my parents died, my adopted brother was as orphaned as we were. At my mother's funeral, he told how lucky he felt to have had such wonderful adoptive parents who dealt so sensitively with his needs. I have never felt that my brother had a problem with his identity. He is a remarkably well adjusted man with a happy marriage and family of his own.
	In stark contrast, someone else I know—not a relative—discovered by accident when he was in his late 40s that he had been adopted. It came as a bolt from the blue and shook him to his very foundations. It explained to him why he had always felt different from his siblings but never knew why. Fortunately, it reinforced in him the strong way in which he valued his own family life and the needs of his children, but it could so easily have gone the other way. Unfortunately, it soured his relationship with his older siblings, whom he felt should have told him about his background. I saw in him how a strong and well adjusted person can question absolutely everything about his life when confronted with such information about his own identity without any help or support from people who are properly trained. His is really a happy story because he has a good life and a lovely family of his own, but many are not happy stories, and it is for their sake that we are questioning the Government today.
	There has not been enough research done about the lifelong effects of being in care. However, Kirton, Webb and Peltier did a file analysis of former care adults who had returned to the Children's Society for information. The analysis found that the needs arising from life in care were similar to the needs of those who had been adopted. Receiving information can have a profound emotional effect and practitioners need time to offer support in this situation. Post-care services for care-leavers are poorly developed in comparison with post-adoption services. The lack of a legislative framework is crucial. Counselling and access to information for adoptees is set in a legislative framework, but rights and services for those who have been in care very much vary from one authority or organisation to another. It is very patchy. There is a need for legislation and guidelines specifically for those who have been in care. Lack of publicity about the opportunities that are available for information means that many people are not aware of the facility for obtaining information at all. The dominant assumption is that the need for services lies with young adults, although, as my example shows, there are lifelong issues and it can come as a bolt from the blue to a fully grown person. There is a gulf between services for adoptees and services for former care adults. Without the recognition and development of a proper legislative framework, that will continue.
	There is no doubt at all that there is a rising need for information from people who have been in care. During the past six months, a survey was carried out by Goddard and Feast about what services and assistance local authorities and voluntary organisations provide to former care adults. The 80 local authorities that replied had received 1,729 requests in the previous year and applications were said to be increasing—we are not talking about just a few people. Twenty-one authorities said training was given to the people supplying those services but 47 did not train the staff for this very sensitive job. Fifty-seven offered counselling, but only 38 offered help with obtaining information about birth families to people who had been in care.
	Since the Children Act 2004, local authorities and voluntary organisations have duties to protect children and to co-operate with each other for the best interests of the children in their care. Because the responsibility of these organisations ceases when the child becomes an adult, there is a feeling that that is where their responsibility ends. However, as we have seen, there are lifelong issues. Unless there is a proper framework so that authorities and organisations are obliged to keep a corporate memory—or in other words, proper records about the family origins of these children—they will not be able to fulfil their information needs later. The population of social and care workers is so transient these days that one cannot rely on people remembering.
	It is also necessary for people to work together through the best multidisciplinary models to provide information and services that will help people in this situation survive after years in care. It has been found that it is usually only when they become young adults and start to make relationships, or even later—maybe at some life-changing point further down the track—that people start to wonder about their own origins which are clouded in the mists of time. We must ensure that people who have been in care have as much right as everyone else to such information, and that the framework is there to provide the information in a context of well informed and skilled counselling. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government have taken this on board and are planning to do something about it.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on bringing to the House a series of issues that I do not believe we have debated before and which carry very considerable implications for both policy and practice. I warmly endorse everything that she has said. The concerns and preoccupations of adults who were formerly in the care system about who they are and from where they came are natural, human concerns. They are every bit as strong and every bit as valid as the desire of adults who were once adopted to discover information about their birth parents and perhaps even to seek contact with them and with their wider birth families.
	The situation faced by adopted adults was one that we debated extensively during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act. We did not debate the comparable position of those who have lived some or all of their early years in the care system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, a previously looked-after adult has certain limited legal rights. Under the Data Protection Act you are entitled to see all information held about you by a local authority social services department. Many local authorities are not resourced to provide such information and many do not view it as a priority. Often files have been dispersed or lost and if they exist it can take a long time to get hold of them.
	Even after information has been assembled, there is rarely anyone available to sit with you and talk you through it. We should not underestimate how important that is. You may have built up your hopes about finding out something particular, but the answers may not be there. You may discover something that comes as a terrible shock, or you may find that the circumstances that brought you into care in the first instance were profoundly sad. To make such discoveries is, at the best of times, an extremely emotional process. The need for counselling and support from an experienced professional person should go without saying, but very often—in fact, more often than not—there is no such support available. T hat, of course, is primarily an issue of resources and manpower.
	There is a quite different problem, however, about the kind of information that you are entitled to access. Information that falls under the heading "third-party information" can be accessed only with the consent of that third party. Obtaining that consent can often be a lengthy and tortuous business. Some agencies are simply not prepared to devote the time to trying to obtain it.
	There are some situations where, with the best will in the world, it is impossible to access information. I heard about one case where a woman, who had been in foster care since a very young child, believed, but was not certain, that she had been adopted by her foster parent. She wanted to find out about her birth family. In fact, she had not been officially adopted. As a result she was denied access to information. The details on the local authority files about her foster carer were deemed to be third party. The foster carer being now dead, no consent could be sought from her for the release of relevant data and the woman was unable even to find out her original birth name, let alone try to trace her birth family.
	That is only one case. We know from a recent study conducted by James Goddard at Bradford University that for the 80 local authorities which responded to the survey, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, there were over 1,700 requests in the previous year from former care adults wanting to access information. Mostly those requests came from people in their 30s and 40s. More than a quarter of the local authorities said that they had no policy or procedure in place to deal with the work and over half said that they had no staff trained to do it.
	All of that bears out the statement of the noble Baroness that service provision in this area is patchy. The underlying reasons for that are a mixture of the obvious and the less obvious. I have referred to some of the obvious reasons, so perhaps it would be useful to look at some of the less obvious.
	We need to think not only about what the law says, but also about the way in which different people interpret their responsibilities under it. The governing principle of the Data Protection Act, that people are normally entitled to see information held about themselves but can see information about a third party only with the consent of that person, makes perfectly good sense in general. However, it is more difficult to apply in the context of families.
	A family that lives harmoniously together is unlikely to have many problems. In the case of a family that is separated by care or adoption, or where there is a conflict of different interests at work, the issues become harder. Information is often about, and of importance to, more than one family member. At the extreme end of the spectrum, it would be improper for an agency or a professional to override the rules of confidentiality by disclosing to a person who had been in care that his mother had had seven abortions before he was born. At the other end of the spectrum, little harm would usually be done by telling the person the nature of his father's job.
	In between the two lies a range of information, the ownership of which is unclear. For example, there might be medical information about difficulties that the mother experienced during pregnancy, which is clearly sensitive personal information about the mother, but potentially relevant to the son or daughter in enabling them to understand some factor about their early life or current state of health, or both. Can that be disclosed or not?
	On a simpler level, people who have spent long periods in care may not be aware that they have brothers or sisters who were born while they were not with their families. Agencies will ask themselves whether it is permissible to share that information with a person who is requesting data and, if so, whether the identity of the sibling needs to be withheld. In such situations, different individuals will interpret the rules in different ways. That cannot be satisfactory.
	When I spoke to the British Association of Adoption and Fostering about this issue, it mentioned another factor—the possibility that local authorities may fear repercussions for themselves, or disapproval from their insurers, if they disclose information that might enable a previously looked-after person to sue them. That is not common, but it has happened, I understand.
	If the Minister finds himself asking what he could do, the essential and basic message is that agencies need to have greater clarity about the data that they can and cannot lawfully disclose—particularly regarding "family" information. There needs to be national guidance on standards, policy and procedure.
	The second message is that the Government would do well to undertake more hard research about the lifelong effects of spending most or all of one's childhood in the care system. The information that is available points in one direction. Work conducted by the Children's Society has found particularly acute levels of emotional need among black and ethnic minority adults who were formerly in care. In particular, evidence suggests that individuals are more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
	After everything that I have read and heard about these issues, I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister that something must be done. There needs to be the same recognition of the needs of adults who were formerly in care as there is about the needs of formerly adopted adults. The legal rights of both groups should be on a par, including the right to independent review, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
	Resourcing such services properly will not come cheap, but improving the services that we have and making them fair and accessible, is, surely, the least that we can do for individuals in whose early lives the state has intervened in so radical a way.